with the Commentary of Medhatithi 243 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 249 из 350Следующая ⇒

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Māṣam’ — ‘Of gold’ (Kullūka); — ‘the exact metal has not been mentioned; it has to be determined on the merits of each case, according as the institution damaged happens to he in a desert or in a country with plentiful water-supply and so forth’ (Medhātithi, whom Buhler has misrepresented).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 328), which adds the following notes: — The meaning is that — ‘that’, the damaged article, — in the shape of the rope or the jar — he shall restore to the well. The Pārijata, in view of the later pronoun ‘tat’ has read ‘rājjughaṭam’ and has explained it as a ‘collective copulative compound’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 141), which reads ‘rajjughaṭam’ and explains it as ‘the rope or the jar’, and explains the rule as that ‘one who steals the rope or the jar should replace it, and he who damages the drinking-booth should be fined a Māṣa.’

VERSE 8.320

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

धान्यं दशभ्यः कुम्भेभ्यो हरतोऽभ्यधिकं वधः ।
शेषेऽप्येकादशगुणं दाप्यस्तस्य च तद् धनम् ॥३२०॥

dhānyaṃ daśabhyaḥ kumbhebhyo harato'bhyadhikaṃ vadhaḥ |
śeṣe'pyekādaśaguṇaṃ dāpyastasya ca tad dhanam ||320||

There shall be ‘immolation’ for one who steals more than ten jars of grain; in other cases he should he made to pay eleven times as much, as also make good the property to the owner. — (320)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘jar’ is used in the sense of a particular measure, and not in that of one jarful only. The exact quantity is sometimes 20 seers, and in others 22 seers according to the custom of the place.

He who steals more than ten ‘jars,’ should be punished with ‘immolation.’ This rule is relaxed in accordance with the circumstances attending each case.

‘In the rest,’ — i.e., in the case of ten jars and less, — the fine shall be eleven times the quantity stolen.

‘The property shall be made good to the owner’; — this applies to all cases of theft.

‘Grain’ — under this term are included seventeen things — the Vrīhi, the Yava and so forth, — as mentioned in the Smṛtis. — (320)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kumbha’ — ‘Equivalent to 20 or 22 Prasthas of 32 Palas each’ (Medhātithi); — ‘to 2 Droṇas of 200 Palas each’ (Govindarājā, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 513), where, Kātyāyana is quoted as making ‘kumbha’ equivalent to 20 droṇas; — in Aparārka (p. 846), which has the following notes: — The kumbha is equivalent 52 droṇas; — ‘vadha’ is to be inflicted on the man who steals more than 20 kumbhas of paddy; in ‘other cases’ — i.e., where the quantity stolen is not large — the thief should be made to pay a fine which is eleven times that which is prescribed for cases of stealing paddy (?); and the quantity stolen has to be restored to the owner.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.275) as indicating the fact that the penalty varies with the quantity of grain stolen; it adds the following notes: — The kumbha is equal to 20 droṇas, — whether the ‘vadha’ prescribed here is to be beating or mutilation or death shall depend upon (1) the qualities of the thief, of the corn stolen and of the owner of the corn, and (2) upon the time, whether it is a time of scarcity or plenty; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 151a), which explains ‘kumbha’ as 10 seers, ‘śeṣe’ as ‘less than ten kumbhas — ‘tasya’ as ‘to the owner of the grain.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 311), which has the following notes: — The kumbha consists of 10 prasthas, — ‘śeṣe’, less than 10 kumbhas, — the property that had been stolen should be restored to the owner.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 101), which explains ‘kumbha’ as 10 prasthas; — and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 341), which says that this refers to eases of serious crime.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.12). — ‘Those who steal more than 10 kumbhas of grain, should be put to death.’

Nārada (Theft: 26). — ‘Corporal punishment or death shall he inflicted on him who steals more than 10 kumbhas of grain; when the quantity is less, he shall be made to pay eleven times the value — thus has Manu ordained.’

VERSE 8.321

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

तथा धरिममेयानां शतादभ्यधिके वधः ।
सुवर्णरजतादीनामुत्तमानां च वाससाम् ॥३२१॥

tathā dharimameyānāṃ śatādabhyadhike vadhaḥ |
suvarṇarajatādīnāmuttamānāṃ ca vāsasām ||321||

In the case or articles weighed by scales, — gold, silver and the rest, — if more than a hundred (are stolen),

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Dharima’ — scales; — things weighed by means of scales are called ‘dhrimameya.’

In as much as clarified butter and other liquid substances are weighed by the seer and other measures, people might think that solid substances are not meant here; hence the author has added — ‘gold, silver and the rest.’

Since silver would have been included under the phrase ‘and the rest,’ its special mention may be taken to indicate that what are meant are only such things as are equal to it in value; it is thus that coral and other precious stones become included, but not copper, iron and Such things.

Of these things, if more than a hundred is stolen, there shall be ‘immolation.’

“What is it of which there should be a hundred? A hundred ‘palas’ or ‘karṣas’ or ‘kārṣāpaṇas’?”

Some people say that ‘hundred palas’ are meant.

But there is no ground available for restricting it to any particular measure. Hence it should be taken as referring to that particular measure which, in the country concerned, happens to be the standard of weighment by scales. The expression ‘a hundred of gold’ pertains, in some places, to ‘tolās’ and in others to ‘palas’; hence the rule is to be interpreted in accordance with local usage.

‘Also in the ease of fine clothes,’ — snoh as silken and coloured raiments; here also we have to construe the words —

‘if there are more than a hundred, there shall be immolation.’ In the case of Sārīs two pieces (pair) are counted as ‘one,’ while in that of flowered wrappers and such other clothes, it is only one piece.

“In as much as the phrase ‘gold, silver and the rest’ would have sufficed to express what is meant, it was entirety useless to add the term ‘things weighed by scales.’

It has been added for the purpose of including such high-priced things as camphor, aguru, musk and so forth. The phrase ‘and the rest’ (used along with ‘gold and silver’) includes only the igneous substances (metals), or only such substances as are weighed in ‘niṣkas’ and other measures, which are not applicable to camphor and other like things.

Though the limit of ‘a hundred’ is put down in regard to both gold and silver, yet, in actual practice a distinction has to be made in the penalty inflicted in the two cases; just as there is in the expiatory rite imposed in connection with them; and this for the simple reason that things distinctly unequal should not be treated as equal. Hence in the case of silver, there is to be ‘immolation’ only if the value of the quantity stolen is equivalent to ‘a hundred of gold.’

In the case of camphor and other things, the number ‘hundred’ would pertain to ‘palas.’ — (321)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Dharimameyānām suvarṇarajatādīnām’ — ‘Articles weighed by scales such as gold, silver, &c.,’ (Medhātithi; Govindarāja and Kullūka); — ‘articles measured by weight, i. e., copper and the rest, other than gold and silver, and of gold, silver, &c.’ (Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 847), which adds the following notes: — ‘Dharimameya’ are those things that are measured by scales, — i.e., ‘gold, silver and so forth’. — If the author had only the expression ‘suvarṇarajatādīnām’, ‘gold, silver &c.,’ then iron and other metals also would become included; similarly if he had only ‘dharimameyānām’ ‘things weighed by scales’, then molasses and such other things also would become included; by having both, even such articles as pearls, corals and the like, which also are ‘weighed by scales,’ become included; these latter also belong to the same category as ‘gold and silver’ by reason of their being highly valuable; the term ‘ādi’, means ‘and the like thus it is that such things as molasses, even though they are ‘weighed by scales’, become excluded; because, being cheap, they have no similarity to ‘gold and silver’; for the same reason such cheap metals as iron, lead and so forth are not included here, — ‘uttamāni vāsāṃsi’, ‘excellent clothes’, clothes of patra, (?) ūrṇa (wool), netra (?) paṭī (silk, and so forth).

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 102); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 323), which explains ‘dharima’ as ‘weight’; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 987); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 152a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (15.13). — ‘One who steals more than a hundred māṣas of such things as arc usually sold by weight, shall be put to death.’

Nārada (Theft, 27). — ‘For stealing more than a hundred palas of gold, silver or other precious metals, or valuable clothes, or very precious gems, corporal punishment or death shall be inflicted.’

Bṛhaspati (22.27). — ‘In the case of stealing women, men, gold, gems, silk and other precious things, the fine shall be equal to the value of the thing stolen; or double the amount shall be inflicted by the King as fine; or the thief shall be executed, to prevent a repetition of the offence.’

Yājñavalkya (2.275). — ‘Punishments shall be inflicted in accordance with the nature of the thing stolen, as to its being trifling, mediocre or of high class; and in inflicting punishments, the time, place, age and capacity should be taken into consideration.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 324). — ‘For stealing gold and gems, corporal punishment.’

Arthaśāstra (Do., p. 100). — ‘For stealing gems and metals, the fine shall be of the value of the article stolen, say the followers of Manu, — double the value, say the followers of Uśanas; it shall be in keeping with the nature of the crime, says Kauṭilya.’

VERSE 8.322

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

पञ्चाशतस्त्वभ्यधिके हस्तच्छेदनमिष्यते ।
शेषे त्वेकादशगुणं मूल्याद् दण्डं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥३२२॥

pañcāśatastvabhyadhike hastacchedanamiṣyate |
śeṣe tvekādaśaguṇaṃ mūlyād daṇḍaṃ prakalpayet ||322||

In the case of more than fifty, the cutting off of the hands is prescribed. In other cases, the king shall inflict a fine of eleven times the value. — (322)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is easily understood.

‘Eleven times the value.’ — It is not only that the stolen article is to be restored; for sometimes it may so happen that a thing of the same kind is not available. Hence money or grain may be given in exchange. — (322)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 323); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 152a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.81-82). — ‘A stealer of gold, silver, or clothes of a value of more than fifty māṣas, shall lose both hands; he who steals a less amount than that shall pay eleven times its value as fine.’

Nārada (Theft, 27). — (See under 321.)

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 323). — ‘For the stealing of things sold by weight, grains and nuts, and other things more valuable than wood and the vest, the fine shall be ten times the value of the article stolen.’

VERSE 8.323

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

पुरुषाणां कुलीनानां नारीणां च विशेषतः ।
मुख्यानां चैव रत्नानां हरणे वधमर्हति ॥३२३॥

puruṣāṇāṃ kulīnānāṃ nārīṇāṃ ca viśeṣataḥ |
mukhyānāṃ caiva ratnānāṃ haraṇe vadhamarhati ||323||

For stealing noble men, and specially women, and the precious gems, the thief deserves ‘immolation.’ — (323)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Noble,’ — born of good families and possessed of learning and other good qualities.

‘Specially women,’ — snoh as are possessed of good qualities, beauty and grace.

The particle ‘ca,’ ‘and,’ indicates that ‘nobility’ and the other qualifications are meant, as far as possible, to be applicable to both ‘men’ and ‘women.’

‘Precious gems,’ — such as diamond, lapis-lazuli, emerald and so forth.

Here also it is to be understood that the articles stolen should he equivalent in value to ‘a hundred of gold’; otherwise, since the qualification ‘precious’ is a relative term, there would be no definiteness in the rule prescribing the punishment.

‘Deserves immolation’; — the exact meaning of ‘immolation’ is to be determined in all cases by the peculiarity of the circumstances of each individual case.

In the case of the stealing of men and women who are not ‘noble,’ or of gems that are not ‘precious,’ — there shall be a fine eleven times the value of what is stolen. — (323)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 317), which explains ‘Kulīnānām’ as ‘born of good families — and ‘mukhyānām ratnānām’ as ‘emerald and the like’, — again at p. 324.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.275), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — The reading of the third foot accepted by all is ‘mukhyānāñcaiva ratnānām’, and ‘ratnānāñcaiva sarveṣām’ is wrong reading; the meaning is that ‘for stealing persons born of great families, specially ladies of great families, and also of diamond, sapphire and other valuable gems, the thief deserves the death-penalty’ in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 344), which says that this clearly refers to the enticing away of boys and girls of good families, and not of slaves, — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 134), which explains ‘mukhya-ratna’ as standing for the emerald and the rest; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 152a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (Theft, 28). — ‘he who steals a man shall have to pay the highest fine; he who steals a woman shall be deprived of his entire wealth; and he who steals a maiden shall suffer corporal punishment.’

Bṛhaspati (22. 27-28). — ‘In the case of women, men, gold, gems, the property of a deity or a Brāhmaṇa, silk and other precious things, the fine shall be equal to the value of the article stolen; or double that amount shall he inflicted as fine; or the thief shall be executed.’

Do. (22.18; Vivādaratnākara, p. 317) — ‘Those who steal human beings should be burnt by the slow fire of chaff.’

Vyāsa (Do.). — ‘The stealer of women shall he burnt on an iron bed by the slow fire of chaff; the stealer of man should have his hands and feet cut off and then exposed on the road-crossing. He who steals a man should he fined the highest amercement; he who steals a woman should have his entire property confiscated; and he who steals a maiden shall he put to death.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 318). — ‘For stealing a king’s son, the fine is 108 kārṣāpaṇas, or corporal punishment; half of that for stealing persons of the royal family, or of men and women in general.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 101). — ‘If one forcibly confines, or forcibly releases, a man or woman, he shall be fined not less than 500 or more than 1,000 Paṇas, i.e., the highest amercement.’

VERSE 8.324

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

महापशूनां हरणे शस्त्राणामौषधस्य च ।
कालमासाद्य कार्यं च दण्डं राजा प्रकल्पयेत् ॥३२४॥

mahāpaśūnāṃ haraṇe śastrāṇāmauṣadhasya ca |
kālamāsādya kāryaṃ ca daṇḍaṃ rājā prakalpayet ||324||

For the stealing of large animals, of weapons or medicines, the king shall determine the punishment, after considering the time and the purpose. — (324)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Large animals,’ — the elephant, the horse and so forth. For stealing these the punishment is to be determined in accordance with ‘the time and the purpose.’

“In connection with all punishments, it has been declared that the time should be taken into consideration; e.g., it is said — ‘In the inflicting of punishments, the king shall take into consideration, the time, place, age and capacity?”

True; in ordinary cases the nature of the punishment is already fixed, and the said circumstances are taken into consideration only for the purpose of determining the exact degree of that punishment; e.g., in cases where the penalty is put down as ‘immolation,’ whether it is to be actual death or only beating, could be determined by circumstances. In the case in question on the other hand, the nature of the punishment is peculiarly variable; e.g., even though the sword may be worth only twenty paṇas, yet if it is stolen at a time when an enemy with uplifted weapon is near at hand, — the punishment would be death; in view of the time and the extremely useful purpose that would have been served by the stolen sword; while under other circumstances, there would be only a fine, either double, or eleven times, the value of the sword. Similarly in the case of a medicine that is not easily available, and is extremely useful, being stolen at the very time at which it was going to be used, — or if, when easily available, it is stolen at the time when it has been just boiled, and if not taken at that very time, would cause great suffering to the patient, — the punishment in such cases would be most severe; in other cases, it would be small. There could be no such diversity unless there be some sort of difference in the cases. Otherwise it would suffice to put down only one verse as embodying the whole law of punishments. Hence the following statements have to be made — ‘At the time of war, the penalty for stealing a horse and such animals would depend on the needs of the king; — in the case of weapons needed by the king, it would be forgiven in some oases, while in others the punishment meted out would he very severe; — in the case of cows and buffaloes belonging to the people, the theft should never be forgiven by the king; — in the ease of horses too, it would all depend upon the purpose served by them; e.g., if the war is being waged in a hilly country, the horse would not be of much use there; so that if it be stolen, the punishment should not he very severe. Thus our sole guide in this matter is the maxim that the king shall determine the penalty after considering the time. — (324)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 8.26.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 319), which adds the following notes — ‘Mahāpaśu’ are the elephant and other large animals, — ‘kālam’, whether it was stolen at the time of war, or during ordinary use and so forth, — ‘kāryam’, smallness or largeness of the use to which the stolen thing was being put, — ‘daṇḍam’, heavier or lighter.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.324-325)

Viṣṇu (5.77-78). — ‘He who has stolen a cow, or a horse, or a camel, or an elephant, shall have one hand, or one foot cut off; — he who has stolen a goat, or a sheep shall have one hand cut off.’

Nārada (Theft, 29). — ‘On him who forcibly seizes large domestic animals — the highest fine shall be inflicted; the middlemost amercement on him who steals cattle of the middle size; and the smallest fine on him who steals small cattle.’

Do. (Do., 33). — ‘For stealing cows belonging to a Brāhmaṇa, for piercing the nostrils of a barren cow, and for stealing a female slave, the thief shall, in every case, lose half his feet.’

Bṛhaspati (22, 26). — ‘One injuring or stealing cattle, clothes, food, drinks, or household utensils shall be compelled to pay a fine of not less than 200 Paṇas.’

Yājñavalkya (2.273). — ‘Stealers of horses and elephants shall be impaled.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 845). — ‘The stealer of horses is killed by having his hands, feet and loin cut off; the stealer of cattle has half of his feet cut off by a sharp weapon.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 101). — ‘For stealing large cattle, human beings, fields, houses, gold, fine doth, and such things, the fine shall be not less than 200 or more than 500 Paṇas, i.e., the middle amercement.’

VERSE 8.325

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

गोषु ब्राह्मणसंस्थासु छुरिकायाश्च भेदने ।
पशूनां हरणे चैव सद्यः कार्योऽर्धपादिकः ॥३२५॥

goṣu brāhmaṇasaṃsthāsu churikāyāśca bhedane |
paśūnāṃ haraṇe caiva sadyaḥ kāryo'rdhapādikaḥ ||325||

For stealing cows belonging to a Brāhmaṇa, and for piercing them with the goad, and for stealing animals, the thief should be immediately made half-footed. — (325)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Belonging to Brāhmaṇas,’ — kept by Brāhmaṇas, owned by Brāhmaṇas; — for stealing such cows; — the Locative ending in ‘goṣu’ has the sense of the Genitive.

‘Animals’ — goats, sheep and so forth. No significance is meant to be attached to the plural number in the words here used.

‘Immediately,’ — at the very moment; without hesitation.

‘Ardhapādikaḥ,’ ‘half-footed’; — ‘ardhapāda’ means half of the foot; and he who has only half of his foot-left is called ‘half-footed’; and one becomes so only if half of his foot is cut off. Hence what the sentence means is ‘that half of the thief’s foot should he cut off.’

‘Kharikā,’ ‘goad,’ is that by which oxen are driven in chariots or fields. — ‘Piercing,’ — causing pain by driving with the goad. The term ‘piercing’ has been explained by the older writers as standing for driving; and certainly the man causes pain to the animal by driving it. Others hold that the punishment laid down is to be inflicted only when the driving it done with the goad.

Others explain the term ‘Kharikā’ as meaning the hind quarters of the animal. (And what would be punished, ac cording to this interpretation, would he the piercing of the hind quarters of cows.)

If however ‘Kharikā’ is taken as standing for the cow that has the evil habit of running away, — then the keeper or someone else who pierces such the cow, should be made ‘half-footed.’

Others interpret the Locative in ‘goṣu’ literally, and explain the words as referring to the theft of cows and other products of the milk of cows, by supplying additional words.

But this cannot he right. For so long as sense can be made out of the words as they stand, why should any additional words be supplied? — (325)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kharikāyāśca bhedane’ — Medhātithi is misrepresented by Buhler. Medhātithi’s reading is ‘khārikāyāḥ’ and the ‘kharikā’ he explains as ‘yayā gorakṣaiḥ kṣetrādau vāhyate balīvardaḥ’, ‘that whereby the ox is driven by the ox-keeper in the fields and other places’; so apparently the driving goad is meant. Buhler has relied upon the reading of Ms. 8, which reads the sentence as ‘sthurikā yo gorathakṣetrādiṣu vāhyate balīvardaḥ’; this reading involves the discrepancy of the feminine noun ‘sthurikā’ being taken as the ox; which discrepancy need not be accepted in the face of the better reading in the printed text (of Mandlik); ‘bhedane’ thus means ‘piercing’ (with the goad) — Kullūka and Rāghavānanda, reading ‘churikā and ‘sthurikā’ explain it as ‘the barren cow’ and ‘bhedane’ as piercing of the nose; — Nārāyaṇa explains it as the load of the ox, and ‘bhedane’ as ‘cutting open and stealing’; — Nandana explains the word as a particular spot on the back of the ox.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 319), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sphurikā’ (which is its reading for ‘kharikā’) is the barren cow, — ‘bhedana’ is ‘the piercing of the nose for purposes of driving — ‘paśūnām’, the animals meant here are all smaller animals except the sheep, the cat and the mongoose; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 135), which says that ‘tūlikā’ means ‘the nostrils’, and bhedana’ means ‘boring.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.324-325)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.324.

VERSE 8.326-329

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

सूत्रकार्पासकिण्वानां गोमयस्य गुडस्य च ।
दध्नः क्षीरस्य तक्रस्य पानीयस्य तृणस्य च ॥३२६॥

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману